vidarh

41 ms·

841.
by vidarh 8mo ago
For me it's about managing ADHD-like (never diagnosed, and I don't care to assume) patterns, coupled with self-accountability. I have a self-improving dashboard (it kicks off Claude to propose additions based my positive/nega
842.
by vidarh 8mo ago
I have a project where we've had Opus, Sonnet, Deepseek, Kimi, Qwen create and execute an aggregate total of about 350 plans so far, and the quality difference as measured in plans where the agent failed to complete the tasks on the fi
843.
by vidarh 8mo ago
They're all looking for outside money because they're all looking for outside money, and so need to keep up with their competitors investments in training . It's a game of chicken. Once their ability to raise more abates, th
844.
by vidarh 8mo ago
I have no problem believing that a Claude Max plan can consume equivalent to $5000 worth of retail Opus use, but one interesting thing you'll see if you e.g. have Claude write agents for you, is that it's pretty aggressive about s
845.
by vidarh 8mo ago
You'd think this should encourage people to build carbon-copies of the tools that have been bought out in the hope of being bought out... It's only a sustainable model if it's fringe enough and with low enough purchase amount
846.
by vidarh 8mo ago
I'm currently working on a project that is self-improving most of the time. Most of the plans for next steps are written by the agent itself, and executed by the agent itself, and the result feeds into choosing which plans to pursue
847.
by vidarh 8mo ago
There are many layers to "knowing how stuff works". What does your manager do when your code breaks? > Continue to throw your LLM at it? Increasingly, yes. If you have objective acceptance criteria, just putting the LLM in a lo
848.
by vidarh 8mo ago
If anything, it's the opposite. With a proper harness you stop having to spend so much energy reviewing every little intermediate step, and can focus on the higher level. I'm actually working on a project now where the biggest pro
849.
by vidarh 8mo ago
Your point being? A proper harness will mostly catch things like that. Even a low end model can be employed to do write tests plans and do consistency checks that mostly weed out stuff like that. Hence: You need a harness, or you'll sp
850.
by vidarh 8mo ago
I cofounded an ISP in the 90s, and our first bank of 16 modems were mounted to a panel on the wall by clamps attached to their serial cables.
851.
by vidarh 8mo ago
Who is suggesting "AI is dead without (these specific) people"? People are wondering what it means specifically for the Qwen model family .
852.
by vidarh 8mo ago
> Author states it's a volume problem. How is that relevant? The entire point of using a bot is to be able to achieve volume while including customisation and the ability to hold a conversation if you reply . There are major provid
853.
by vidarh 8mo ago
There's no fundamental difference, but in practice the difference is one of frequency. E.g. I sometimes have 10+ agents kicking off changes to the same small project at the same time, and likely to all want to merge within the next 15-
854.
by vidarh 8mo ago
I'm running agents doing merges right now, and yes and no. They can resolve merges, but it often takes multiple extra rounds. If you can avoid that more often it will definitely save both time and money.
855.
by vidarh 8mo ago
Or you have someone running an AI bot that does research on your target automatically. Ironically, one of regular features of spam I'm getting semi-regularly now is for "marketing" services" that provide OpenClaw instanc
856.
by vidarh 8mo ago
The author needs to avoid a sufficient number of false positives for the time investment not to be prohibitive, and that is what he is arguing is becoming a hard problem. I have problems believing that given some of the e-mail I receive. I
857.
by vidarh 8mo ago
That was far crazier than I expected going into it... To the point I've seen Hollywood movies with far more believable plots that people would find unrealistic.
858.
by vidarh 8mo ago
We care about this one well known authors opinion if we're someone who sees it as a loss that he and people like him will be less available to us. We also care about it because it's an indicator of the rise of a new societal pro
859.
by vidarh 8mo ago
AI can trivially replicate average-ish and somewhat above human writing if given a tone sample to copy. Getting to replicate the quality of writing output of a decent author, probably not without a lot of effort, but the threshold here is t
860.
by vidarh 8mo ago
You need a harness, yes, and you need quality gates the agent can't mess with, and that just kicks the work back with a stern message to fix the problems. Otherwise you're wasting your time reviewing incomplete work.
861.
by vidarh 8mo ago
I have the AI integrate their results themselves. That's if anything one of the things they do best. I also have them do reviews and test their own work first before I check it, and that usually makes the remaining verification fairl
862.
by vidarh 8mo ago
Yes, it's often faster if you sit around waiting . What I will do instead is prompt the AI to create various plans, do other stuff while they do, review and approve the plans, do other stuff while multiple plans are being implement
863.
by vidarh 8mo ago
Yes, but for most uses that is irrelevant. Most of the complaints are not about them not being top-level writers, but that they stand out negatively from human writing by relying on a bunch of bad tropes and stereotypical language use. Mayb
864.
by vidarh 8mo ago
> This setup is potentially effective sure, but you're not learning in the sense that GP meant. Then GP didn't mean anything useful. I've learned how to build those setups. I learn to build by orchestrating groups of agent
865.
by vidarh 8mo ago
Hence why I finished the sentence "and we have no evidence to suggest that is even possible". I think it's exceedingly improbable that we're any more than very advanced automatons, but I like to keep the door ajar and po
866.
by vidarh 8mo ago
That's why I specifically didn't call the LLM itself Turing complete, but stated that if you put a loop around a Turing machine you can trivially make it Turing complete. Maybe I should have been clearer and write "the combin
867.
by vidarh 8mo ago
This is like saying people shouldn't need to be trained for a job. There's no reason to expect a general purpose model to know what you want when you've not given it any training in what to do for your specific case. And in t
868.
by vidarh 8mo ago
They really don't, if you actually bother prompting them. Give them a voice sample, and tell them to match the tone, and you already get something 10x better. Have them revise with a list of common writing problems - not just common LL
869.
by vidarh 8mo ago
Context effectively provifes an IO port, and so all the loop needs to do is to simulate the tape head, and provide a single token of state. You can not be convinced Turing complete is relevant all you want - we don't know of any more
870.
by vidarh 8mo ago
Put a loop around an LLM and, it can be trivially made Turing complete, so it boils down to whether thinking requires exceeding the Turing computable, and we have no evidence to suggest that is even possible.

More ›